How to make a succesfull game: violence

i really love JT's phrase 'murder simulator.' that could be a way to sell your title "the macs first murder simulator, making children around the world shoot each other".. or something, im not a marketing person.

Volte Wrote:Instead of making this violent game, how about you invest this potential energy in a psychiatric hospital. I'm sure you'd fit right in there.

Please, the world has enough violence. Go join the military if your that desperate. We could really use cannon fodder like you.

You should go play some violent games. Release some of that built-up anger you have going there.

Seriously, attitudes like this are far more offensive to me than any amount of imaginary blood-spray you could possibly put on my computer screen. The guy wants to express himself in a violent game? Let him. Don't like it? Don't play it. Don't go around telling people what we can or can't make with our own time and talent.

Anyway...

@Najdorf:
I also suggest you play God of War for inspiration. It's so deliciously brutal. Games don't become successful just because they're bloody, though. You look at games like Doom, GTA3, and the like, they get the attention they do because they're accessible and fun as hell. Gameplay needs to come first.

If you try to make your game as controversial as possible with the intention of getting publicity, it will show in your game and it will not be as cool. Case in point: Acclaim's BMX-XXX, or Rockstar's Bully. The former was a pathetic abortion of a game, and the latter is so blatantly whoring for media attention without offering any legitimate reason to play that there's really no way to take it seriously.

With KDC, the original intention wasn't to make it as bloody as possible- that just sort of happened. The intention was to put as many enemies on the screen as possible, which was a gameplay hook. Modesty out the window for a moment, the game was still fun as hell when all the enemies were geometric shapes. Of course, once those tens of thousands of badguys all started exploding and lauching their innards all over the place...

Well to be honest, it was meant to be offensive, either way, I have a right to express my opinion. Never-the-less, I told no one to do anything, you should pay more attention to the key words in someone's post, such as "suggestion", and "how about". There is something to be said for class in a game, and modeling one after "Kill Bill" (which I actually found to be hilarious let alone disgusting) just for the sake of having blood, guts, and violence does not constitute a good game.

I do however apologize for this line:

Quote:We could really use cannon fodder like you.

That was unnecessary, however I stand by everything else I said. Either way, I'll leave this thread be.

I'm not anti-violence. I don't believe violent video games are evil. Some of my favorite games have a good amount of violence in them (Resident Evil and what not). But I'm sick and tired of developers making games like Grand Theft Auto and Postal 2. They *RUIN* it for the other developers that have a little more social consciousness and restraint. The press and fundies fixate on the violent-for-violence-sake games and then the rest of us have to deal with bullshit like Jack Thompson and Hilary Clinton and all the other fuckers for the next ten years because a few developers want to create a little controversy and get a couple additional sales.

Plus, violence is extremely overrated. It adds very little to the gameplay experience. I quote Chris Crawford from "Chris Crawford on Game Design":

Quote:We are now in a position to address one of the most vexing problems facing the computer games industry: violence in games. The industry's response to the accusations leveled against it (that computer games are too violent) has disappointed me. For the most part, people in the industry circle the wagons and deny the problem. The denigrate their accusers, wrap themselves in the First Amendment, and close their minds to all arguments. This saddens me because all this ruckus is so avoidable. Game designers cling to violence only because they cannot imagine other forms of conflict.

Consider violence in terms of the three elements I have just presented: dimension, directness, and intensity. Violence is the most intense, direct, physical form of conflict. What strikes me is the industry's obsession with the most extreme manifestations of these elements. Conflict in many games is about as physical as it can get: recall Mortal Kombat's crowning moment, when the player has overcome his opponent, and the words "Finish Him!" appear on the screen, at which point the player rips out his opponent's head and spine. Directness is another overdone element: why do so many games put the player in close proximity to his opponents? Why do violent games so rarely place the violent act outside the view of the player? And of course, the kill-or-be-killed approach of many games is far and away the most intense expression of conflict. As the character Quark once said on the television show Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, "Why do have to kill so many? Couldn't we just would some?" Not in many games, apparently.

Thus, violence in games represents the most extreme form of conflict: gorily, physical, utterly direct, and maximally intense. My objection to this is not so much moral as aesthetic: Do we have to use a bludgeon when we design? Violence in games is like Wagner played for 18 hours with the bass turned up. It's like chocolate cereal in chocolate milk with chocolate sprinkles and chocolate fudge on top. It's like a newsgroup correspondent whose vocabulary is dominated by "****," "shit," and "crap." It's overdone. It's so much of the same thing that it's distasteful.

[much later in the book]

Compounding the problem is approbation that the industry bestows upon such products. A prudent industry would treat sleazy products with harsh disdain, but the games industry cannot conceal its delight in sleaze. Grand Theft Auto III won industry awards despite the damage it did to the industry image.

Industry insiders protest that they are merely offering the players what they want; they are not imposing values on players but responding to values already inculcated in youths by a sick society. This is self-serving circumlocution. The games industry is not passively responding to values imposed upon it by a ruthless marketplace; it has selected its own audience, driving away most who do not revel in blood-soaked killing. By offering such games, the industry has attracted the kind of audience that demands them - thereby reinforcing the cycle.

The result of this profound strategic marketing blunder is an industry that is steadily descending into ever-deeper sleaze. The only solution is to take a deep breath, devote a large amount of money to breaking out of this self-imposed pit, and pay the price of developing a healthier marketplace.

Old Man Murray had an article condemning crates and boxes in first-person shooters. They had a measurement, time-to-crate, that measured how long it took until you could see a crate inside the game. The lower the time, the worse them game. The reason? Because crates showed the lack of imagination in the game developer. The faster the developer resorted to adding crates, the faster the developer had run out of innovative ideas and the worse the game. Violence is the same way.

Violence is a spice that should be used judiciously, not slathered on or eaten as a main course.

Hmm... I didn't realize that people with different backgrounds might have different relations with videogame violence.

I mean, I never got through much real violence myself in the real world. Violence in games and movies does not cause me any problem. I guess I had much real violence going on in my real life my reaction might be different.

I remember this game I played in the arcade over 15 years ago. (I think it was called "Chiller") http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2/chiller/. The player simply had a light gun and was presented with a scene of a torture room. There were people connected to each torture device. To score enough points and progress to the next stage, they can choose to shoot a lever and make the machines work their "magic."

I must have played it when I was between 10-13 years old. I remember thinking that it was a pretty messed up game, but I still played it and had fun. The key thing is that we all knew it was fake because it was a cartoon.

I'll never forget when I shot a person in the head in Metal Gear Solid 2 and the blood splattered on the wall. The result actually made me feel really bad of what I had done because it seemed so realistic. I was 24 years old this time around.

I doubt that realistic virtual violence makes a youngster more prone to violence, but it may play a part in uncontiously desensitizing them from how to interpret "real life" violence.

In the end, if you're going to make a violent/bloody game, make it be silly or comical. Throw some humor into it like "Shaun of the Dead".

ProRattaFactor
(Retro-infused games for iPad, iPhone, iPod touch, and Mac)

gatti Wrote:I'll never forget when I shot a person in the head in Metal Gear Solid 2 and the blood splattered on the wall. The result actually made me feel really bad of what I had done because it seemed so realistic. I was 24 years old this time around.

Along the same lines, from Metal Gear Solid, I could never deal with strangling enemy soldiers and feeling the controller rumble as their neck snapped. Waaaay to realistic for my tastes.

.but you have to be cold and calm if you are a spy, thats a key element of the metal gear games, it wasnt spurious violence. It was an extension to the realism, and brought you into the role of snake or ryden more.

unknown Wrote:.but you have to be cold and calm if you are a spy, thats a key element of the metal gear games, it wasnt spurious violence. It was an extension to the realism, and brought you into the role of snake or ryden more.

Yes. Exactly. Violence like that is perfectly okay as it's dictated by the story and the gameplay. Metal Gear Solid 2 and Splinter Cell are even better than most games, as you can actually finish the games without killing *anyone*.

But games that are just violent for violence sake, with extra gore and blood just to be controversial, *tsk* *tsk*. Bad developer. No doughnut.